2 

Complete implementation of DLMS Changes and ongoing enhancements: 

• New CCP requirements 

• Distribution depot receipt for colocated retail material 

• Other open ADCs 

During the discussion, Ms. Hilert indicated that problems are being encountered regarding the 

way the Distribution Standard System (DSS) and the Enterprise Business System (EBS) handle 

changes, follow-ups, and reconsiderations. She said in order to correct the problems, system 

change requests (SCRs) must be written so that they can be included in the priority lists of both 

EBS and DSS. ACTION: HQS DLA J-3 to prepare SCRs for DSS and EBS to correct 

problems with changes, follow-ups and reconsiderations. In addition, a problem was discussed 

regarding e-mail addresses which contain an apostrophe not working correctly in WebSDR. 

ACTION: DAASC to look into the problem and determine if a change is required. An 

Air Force representative asked if Item Manager Code could be added to SDRs. Ms. Hilert asked 

that information regarding the request be sent to her so she could better understand the 

requirement. 

 b. Status of SDR Management Reports and Query Capability. Mr. Tim Holloway, 

DAASC, provided a demonstration of the Composite Query, and the Management Reports 

selection criteria and layout design. Several suggestions were made to enhance both the 

Composite and Report criteria. The following items were discussed. ACTION: DAASC (and 

DLMSO to update Functional Requirements Document where needed). 

• Add NSN to the Composite View screen when different SDR records are retrieved 

on a query

• Display Part number and Cage together on the Report Selection screen

• Remove Type 5 SDRs from the drop-down menu (Storage Quality Control Reports 

are not available at this time)

• Look into providing a link to WebVLIPS 

There was a discussion on multiple SDRs for the same document number. Ms. Hilert explained 

that the ability to report multiple SDRs on the same document number vary by Service/Agency. 

While DSS allows multiples, the Navy only allows one. No rules have been imposed and 

Services/Agencies can reject multiple SDRs for the same document or handle in another way. 

An Air Force representative said that she had a problem with Responder Access to answer SDRs 

in the Web being revoked. Ms. Kohlbacker, DAASC indicated that this was not a normal 

process at DAASC and an example of this happening should be provided to her for research. Ms. 

Hilert pointed out that currently there are no restrictions on WebSDR to limit who can look at the 

records; any Service/Agency can look at another’s SDRs. She said that there may be no reason 

to limit the ability to review records, except possibly some limitations placed on contractors. 

This will become more important as query and report capability is enhanced. ACTION: ALL 

COMPONENTS to identify any restrictions considered necessary to limit access to SDR 

records. DAASC identified an issue with the number of records that can be reasonably handled 

for on-line reports without impacting processing times for SDRs. DAASC was asked to explore 

best approach. Alternative will include monthly “canned reports” and ability to make reports 

available at a later time. ACTION: ALL COMPONENTS to provide information on what 
3 

“canned reports” would be most useful. ACTION: ALL COMPONENTS to review both the 

Composite and Management Reports and provide comments, additions or deletions. 

 c. SDR Preparation at the Consolidation and Containerization Points (CCPs). 

Ms. Leanne Brown, Defense Distribution Center (DDC), J-3-MA, provided a briefing on 

CCP SDRs for Wood Packaging Material (WPM). This change which is outlined in PDC 295 

(and ADC 206) is to support generation of DLMS SDRs at the CCPs. The initial use will 

involve shipments using noncompliant WPM and shipping through the CCPs to OCONUS sites. 

These are required to be packed in/on wood that complies with DoD 4140.01-M-1 and 

International Standards for Phystosanitary measures (ISPM) 15 requirements. The CCP will 

prepare an SDR to notify responsible parties that their WPM is not in compliance. CCP 

shipments with noncompliant WPM will not be held for disposition, but will immediately be 

repalletized onto compliant wood pallets. Boxes, crates, etc., will be sent to a remediation area 

through use of current DSS PPP&M process and placed in a Hold Status of “W” until 

remediation is completed. SDRs will be generated for both pallet replacements and box/crate 

rebuilds. Labor and material to remediate will be charged to CCP Cost Code. SDRs will be used 

to notify ICPs of vendor shipments placed in or on noncompliant WPM or shipments from 

Service depots that arrive in or on noncompliant WPM. Ms. Heidi Daverede, DLMSO, 

discussed the fact that there will be multiple NSNs and part numbers (P/N) available to the CCP 

from the 856A (CCP due-in), but the CCP will pass only one per SDR. Ms. Hilert indicated she 

would like more than one NSN /P/N number passed if there are multiples in the due-in. In 

addition, Ms. Hilert asked if shipper DoDAAC should be added to the SDR (which currently 

only identifies shipper by Routing Identifier or vendor CAGE). Ms. Daverede agreed to 

coordinate with Ms. Brown to determine additional data elements that should be added, and 

although the Critical Design Review for the DSS changes (implementation is scheduled for 

July 08) has already been completed, she would determine if additional changes to the 856A 

could be made. Ms. Daverede also indicated that the full shipper address is not in the 856A and 

asked if it was required. Ms. Hilert later found that the DLMS supplement has a placeholder for 

this, but it is not programmed at DAAS. Ms. Hilert does not anticipate adding this capability 

unless specifically requested by the Components. Action code 2J (shown on chart 11) should be 

changed to 1Z, Other action requested (see remarks). Ms. Hilert emphasized that none of the 

Components ICP are able to accept this new type of SDR in their systems. She said that one 

alternative is for WebSDR to convert the transactions received from the CCP to e-mail SDRs 

until the systems are able to handle as a transaction. ACTION: All Components provide status 

on how these new SDR will be handled at their ICPs. Provide comments in conjunction with 

PDC response due April 18, 2008. 

 d. Cancellation of SDR Joint Component Instruction/Regulation/Manual. 

Mr. Jim Lewis, DLSMO, briefed the committee on a proposal to rescind the Joint Regulation on 

SCRs and replace it with DLMS Manual, Volume 2, Chapter 17. Mr. Lewis explained that both 

the Joint Regulation and the DLMS manual cover the SDR process and it is inefficient to expend 

resources to maintain two sets of SDR publications. In addition, since DoD Components are 

migrating to DLMS, and DoD has mandated in DoDI that all DoD publications that are not 

manuals will be converted to DoD manuals, it seems an appropriate time to transition SDR 

policy and procedures to the DLMS Manual. Representatives from the Security Assistance (SA) 

community indicated that while they had no objection to rescinding the Joint Regulation, they 
4 

felt that there should be a separate section in the DLMS manual dedicated to SA as there is today 

in the Joint Instruction. Ms. Hilert said she didn’t think there would be a problem in 

accommodating that request. An Air Force representative from AFMC, who joined the meeting 

after this discussion, indicated that the Air Force nonconcurred with the proposal to replace the 

joint instruction with the DLMS manual. Ms. Hilert requested that she read the rationale in the 

briefing, and if the Air Force still objects, to formally nonconcur with justification. ACTION: 

ALL COMPONENTS to provide any additional comments/concurrence on rescinding the Joint 

Instruction and replacing it with the DLMS Manual, Volume 2, Chapter 17. 

e. FMS SDRs – Low Dollar, Not Submitted as Information Only. In accordance with 

DoD guidance, the International Logistics Control Office (ILCO) determines if FMS SDRs falls 

within the Letter of Offer and Acceptance criteria and forwards to the appropriate 

Service/Agency action activity. Typically, the dollar value criteria is $200.00 or greater. If the 

SDR is below the dollar value, the customer may still report the problem (without credit or 

reshipment) for possible trend or corrective action at the Service/Agency. DLA has reported that 

not all ILCOs are identifying SDRs as information only. The ILCO representatives explained 

that there are instances when the SDR is reporting a wrong item when the customer is not 

requesting credit, but does need disposition instructions for the wrong item; however, this may 

be confusing if the discrepancy code used is 1H, indicating information only, when in fact 

disposition instructions are needed. It was suggested that discrepancy code 1A be used in these 

circumstances and the definition changed to clarify the situation. The new definition would be 

“1A – Disposition Instructions only, no financial adjustment.” ACTION: Ms. Hilert concurred 

and agreed to ensure proper documentation and staffing as a DLMS change. 

f. SA Portal for SDR Processing – Status Update. The deployment of the Air Force 

Security Assistance Command (AFSAC) developed SDR system to the Army and Navy 

International Logistics (IL) communities through the SKIP is awaiting prioritization by the 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA). There are several other projects being worked 

on ahead of the SDR system. ACTION: DSCA is to review the situation and report back to 

DLMSO and the ILCOs as it appears this initiative isn’t getting the appropriate prioritization. A 

schedule for deployment is requested. 

g. Processing Local SDRs for Air Force. Mr. Joe Rutkowski, DDC, provided a 

briefing on procedures for processing local SDRs for Air Force activities colocated with a DLA 

depot. He indicated that these procedures vary by location. At Defense Depot Hill, Air Force 

submits a hard copy to the depot, which must be entered into WebSDR; Defense Depot 

Oklahoma processes local SDRs in accordance with an agreement initiated in 2002, which uses a 

local form, and requires transferring SDR information to a spreadsheet; Defense Depot Warner 

Robbins receives SDRs via e-mail from a locally created website, and then the depot employee 

must enter the SDR into WebSDR. SDRs for off-base customers are reported through WebSDR, 

or a hard copy is mailed to the depot and the SDR is entered into WebSDR by depot personnel. 

These multiple, different procedures are causing extra work and delays in processing the SDRs. 

If the SDRs were entered directly into the Web, processing time and manual workload would be 

reduced. In addition, Ms. Hilert indicated that she has been involved in phone discussions 

regarding the implementation of the Base Realignment and Consolidation (BRAC) at Air Force 

Maintenance sites and has learned that those sites are using nonstandard (pseudo) DoDAACs to 
5 

requisition material and to prepare SDRs. She emphasized that practice should be discontinued. 

She also said that she had discussed the turn-around time of processing local SDRs with 

Air Force personnel during the BRAC discussions, and had indicated that it could take up to 30 

days to provide disposition. She was told during the BRAC phone calls, that there were to be no 

changes to SDR processing under BRAC, although the Air Force representatives at the SDR 

meeting indicated that the potential delay in turn-around was unacceptable. Air Force personnel 

at the meeting also indicated that the BRAC implementation would change the way receipts are 

in-checked into maintenance, with a DLA person now doing that in-check. This could help to 

control the way SDRs are processed. Ms. Hilert said that a separate meeting should be held 

between DLA and the Air Force to work out the SDR procedures. ACTION: DLA HQs J-3 to 

schedule a meeting with Air Force, DDC, DLMSO to discuss discrepancy procedures at 

Air Force sites. 

h. Procedures for Processing/Routing SDRs for Retail Receipts at Colocated 

Defense Depots. Mr. Joe Rutkowski, DDC, provided a briefing on the current procedures for 

processing SDRs for discrepant material discovered at time of receipt for retail material the DD 

is storing in support of a colocated activity. This is a complex procedure which requires two 

SDRs to be processed. The DD processes the receipt and the SDR to the retail owner of the 

material. The retail owner, in turn, must submit an SDR to the ICP as the depot does not know 

the appropriate disposition request, i.e., retain the material, request credit, request disposition 

instructions, etc. Each SDR submitted by the retail manager could have a different disposition 

request and can only be determined by the retail owner. In addition, each DD has slightly 

different procedures, depending on the Service retail customers they support. The Navy sites 

have a system in place which works according to the process outlined above, but is a system 

under the NSDRS and therefore doesn’t cause confusion to Navy users. The Army’s procedures 

vary by site; DD Red River works offline with the retail owner; DD Corpus Christi inputs the 

SDR for the customer and always requests credit. At Air Force sites the DD submits the SDR to 

the retail activity, but it is not clear if the Air Force is actually receiving credit for discrepancies 

for DLA managed items as they may be using an incorrect method to forward the SDR to the 

SoS causing a reject in EBS. Mr. Rutkowski indicated that there is also a problem in DSS when 

there is no owner RIC in the SDR. DSS may not put the DLA ICP (SMS) RIC in to “To 

Address” of the forwarding action. Ms. Hilert suggested that he write a Program Trouble Report 

(PTR) to have DSS changed. ACTION: DDC to determine the feasibility of correcting the 

DSS problem with a PTR. The Air Force representative from Warner Robbins believes that 

credit is being received. Ms. Hilert said she would research the situation and find an example of 

an SDR submitted by/for a retail activity so that Warner Robbins could determine if credit was 

received. ACTION: DLMSO to provide an example of a SDR for a retail item to Warner 

Robbins Air Logistics Center. Additional discussions from Air Force participants indicated that 

at both Robbins and Tinker, SDRs are not initiated for these types of discrepancies; instead the 

material is returned to the DD using a paper form and a D7_ (issue reversal) is processed by the 

DD and the wrong material or overage is returned to storage. Ms. Hilert emphasized that this is 

not the proper procedure and that an SDR must be processed. She also indicated that the 

procedures for processing SDRs for retail receipts needs to be standardized among all Services. 

If all Services want the DD to complete the SDR for them (as is done at Red River) and sent to 

the SoS for disposition, business rules will need to be established that will allow the depot to 

request the appropriate disposition, e.g., always request credit and disposition instructions, etc. 
6 

In addition, a change would be required in DSS to allow the preparation of a Type 7 (customer) 

SDR during the receiving process. ACTION: DDC: Determine feasibility of changing DSS to 

allow Type 7 SDR to be processed in Receiving. ACTION: ALL SERVICES: Provide 

proposed solutions to a standardized process for SDRs for retail receipts. 

 i. Procedures for Resolution of Wrong Item Discrepancies involving different 

Owner/Manager. Ms. Hilert outlined the procedures for processing SDRs for incorrect, 

misidentified, or unacceptable substitutes. The discussion centered on the fact that procedures 

vary by Service. For DLA and Navy managed material, the depots have authority to provide 

disposition instructions for the wrong item. Ms. Hilert discussed if the depots should be allowed 

to make this decision since they don’t have knowledge of where the owner may want the 

material returned. Air Force owned material requires coordination by the depot with the owner; 

and decisions on disposition of Army owned material are made by the owner. In addition, there 

is some confusion on when credit is provided to the customer. Ms. Hilert said that the policy for 

SA customers is that credit is not to be granted until the material is returned to US custody. For 

U.S. customers, credit is given before the material is turned-in; however, if the material is not 

returned, the customer is supposed to be billed. However, there is no current EBS control to 

follow-up to determine if the material was returned. Ms. Hilert emphasized when the two items 

involved are managed by separate Sources of Supply (SoSs), it is the responsibility of the 

activity that receives the SDR to ensure appropriate resolution by coordinating with the other 

involved ICP or transferring the SDR, so that the initiator receives both financial resolution and 

material disposition instructions from the SoS of the item received. ACTION: DLA to review 

procedures for tracking return of material and timing/procedures for processing credit for 

material directed for return. 

j. SDRs for GSA directed shipments through the CCP. Ms. Hilert identified a 

problem that occurs when GSA directs vendors’ shipments to customs through the DLA CCPs. 

If the material is lost and GSA has proof of delivery from the vendor, neither the vendor nor 

GSA will reimburse the customer. DLA has no policy/process to provide credit for CCP losses. 

Ms. Hilert recommended a business process outlined below: 

• Customer submits SDR to GSA 

• GSA researches and validates the proof of delivery 

• GSA forwards SDR to the CCP via WebSDR 

• CCP receives the SDR via DSS 

• If research confirms loss is not recoverable, CCP recommends credit to HQ DLA 

• HQ DLA authorizes credit to GSA customer 

GSA representatives indicated that it may be possible for GSA to provide credit to the customer 

and receive reimbursement from DLA. Ms. Hilert said she would discuss this alternative with 

DLA J-8. Ms. Hilert requested GSA provide an estimate of how often SDRs are submitted for 

material lost at the CCPs. ACTION: GSA is to provide information on shipments lost at CCPs 

(frequency/dollar value). DLMSO will coordinate with J-8 and develop a proposed DLMS 

Change. 
7 

k. DLMS Change Proposals. 

 (1). ADC 225B, DoD WebSDR Requirement for Information Copy New 

Reply Codes. This approved change modifies reply codes and clarifies procedures used when 

requesting an information copy via a reject reply code. When the SoS receives a reply to an 

SDR from a storage site, and an information copy of the original report is required for further 

processing, the reply will be directed to DAAS with reply code 936, vice 926. When DAAS 

receives the request for an information copy and it is unmatched, DAAS will reject the 

transaction to the submitter. This will be done using a DAAS generated reply transaction with a 

Reply Code 937, instead of 926. During initial testing of ADC 225/225A, DAASC identified 

that there was a potential for miscommunication due to the reuse of existing Reply Code 926. 

The new reply codes are provided to ensure the reject transaction is properly interpreted by the 

receiving system, without replying on the from/to routing identifier and making it possible to 

easily isolate the missing information copy processing for metrics so that causes and trends can 

be identified. No action; this is an implemented change. 

 (2). ADC 245A, Notification for Distribution Depot (DD) Product Quality 

Deficiency Report (PQDR) Exhibit Receipt. This approved change defines new routing and 

processing changes for SDRs prepared by DDs to notify Air Force managers of the arrival of 

Air Force owned PQDR exhibits, and is designed to support expansion to other Services. Two 

new data elements are added to the SDR transaction, the PQDR Report Control Number and the 

PQDR Accession number. Until the updated DLMS transaction is available to DSS personnel, 

preparing the SDR exhibit receipt notification will annotate the PQDR Accession Number as the 

first entry in the remarks field of the SDR. This change is programmed, but not implemented. 

ACTION: DAASC/DDC/Air Force: All parties are to prepare for scheduled implementation 

on April 12, 2008. 

 (3). ADC 256, WebSDR/SDR Transaction Edits: Forwarding and follow-up 

Timeframes. The approved change implements two new edit processes for WebSDR that will 

improve data quality and enforce existing business rules. Follow-up transactions will be edited 

to ensure that an appropriate time has passed before follow-ups can be submitted. Currently, 

customers are not to submit follow-ups within 55 days of report submission, or 30 days if an 

FMS shipment and Discrepancy Code is S5, or 30 days if SDR is for a controlled inventory item 

or hazardous situation. The DAASC edit (on-line and transactions) will not fully enforce these 

timeframes since it is not cost-efficient to check for a controlled inventory item and identify 

exceptions, but the edit will provide business rules and limit premature submission. If the 

follow-up is being submitted on the web and the current date is less than 30 days from the date of 

the transmission of the original SDR, the submission will be blocked and a pop-up box will be 

displayed, indicating the follow-up can’t be submitted. Transactions will be rejected using Reply 

Code 933, (SDR follow-up submitted before actions activity response time has elapsed). In 

addition, multiple follow-ups for the same SDR will not be permitted. An additional edit will 

prohibit the forwarding to a new action activity (reply code 504), historical, or other record 

types, which lack full data content necessary to establish a basic SDR transaction. The 504 

forwarding process will also be adjusted to permit forwarding using other than the original report 

record when the full information is available and no basic report is available, or where there is a 
8 

later transaction from the initiator. This change is not implemented. ACTION: DLMSO has 

requested DAASC identify this change to be treated as a priority enhancement. 

 (4) ADC 268, Inclusion of Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR) 

Report Control Number (RCN) on Security Assistance (SA) Quality Related Reply. This 

approved change adds the PQDR RCN to the SDR reply transaction format. The RCN must be 

included in the SDR reply to maintain the association with the PQDR as identified by the supply 

source. This will establish an audit trail and facilitate communication. This change has been 

programmed for use when the business process is implemented. 

 (5) ADC 240, DLMS Transactions for Stock Screening Request/Reply and 

Web-Enhanced Stock Screening Requests and Storage Quality Control Reports (SQCRs). 

This approved DLMS change defines a requirement for new DLMS transactions to be used by 

supply chain owner/manager to request storage sites to perform stock screening actions, and 

allow storage sites to reply to the owners/managers electronically. Ms. Hilert asked Rutkowski, 

from the DDC, for an update on the implementation of this change in DSS. SUBSEQUENT to 

the meeting Mr. Rutkowski indicated that these changes are still being programmed. 

l. Implementation Goals and DAAS Priorities. Competing priorities and limited 

resource for DAASC were discussed. Ms. Kohlbacher, DAASC, stressed that some of the 

DAASC workload is mandatory and will take precedence over requested functional changes. 

• Info copy distribution to all parties identified (completed March 2008) 

• Improved processing of routing determination for e-mail versus transaction 

(completed March 2008) 

• Complete open SDRs 

 High priority to improving forwarding function (reply code 504) 

 Priority to establishing timeframes and on-line guidance for follow-ups 

• Improve arrangement/display names of e-mail SDR content 

• Complete Management Reports/Finalize Composite Query 

• Update IUID functionality on the web 

• Complete access roles and levels of automation 

• Mandate 4 position Discrepancy Codes (requires PDC/ADC) 

• Add capability to send attachments electronically 

• Update training slides 

• DAASC Mandated Technical Requirements 

 Application Security and Development Checklist 

 SDR Transition to Oracle 

m. Army Pseudo Receipt/Discrepancy Code F SDRs. This is an old problem whereby 

the Army automatically generates SDRs from nonreceipt or shortages (based on Material Receipt 

Acknowledgement (MRA with discrepancy code F). The Army had agreed that these types of 

SDRs would be researched to ensure they were valid prior to submission. DLA reported they 

were still receiving SDRs that had not been researched, but it appears that the problem is isolated 

to a specific Army location. Examples were provided to the Army. ACTION: The Army is to 

determine if the Standard Army Retail Supply System (SARSS) at the identified location was not 

updated. 
9 

 n. Army Interface Status Update. The Army representatives indicated that SDR 

preparation will be automated in the Global Combat Support System Army (GCSS) at the 

tactical level in the receiving process, and will be DLMS compliant. However, no firm decision 

has been made relative to the Army’s USA Electronic Product Support (AEPS) SDR system 

being replaced by the SDR module in the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP). ACTION: 

Army to provide update to DLMSO.

 o. Air Force Enterprise Solution-Supply (ES-S) – Status Update. The Air Force 

representative was not available to provide an update on ES-S. However, a slide was provided 

which indicated that ES-S will be DLMS compliant. 

 p. SDRs Submitted to DLA Contractor Shippers (acting as depots). Pam Stephens, 

Defense Supply Center Philadelphia discussed business rules for handling SDRs that result from 

shipments made by contractors acting as a storage depots and shippers. Currently these SDRs 

are directed to SMS for action, and Ms. Stephens proposed that they be routed via e-mail to the 

contractor for research and action. This will require the contractors to submit a System Access 

Request (SAR) for access to WebSDR including the authority to respond. In addition, e-mail 

addresses, preferably generic, must be provided to DAASC for routing the SDRs. ACTION: 

Ms. Stephens agreed to coordinate with all DLA ICPs to provide e-mail addresses and ensure 

contractors understand how to initiate a SAR. 

q. Shipment of Sensitive Missile Components to Taiwan. Ms. Linda Kimberlin, 

DLA J-31, provided an overview on an incident announced to the press on the day of the SDR 

meeting, involving the shipment by a distribution depot of missile components to the government 

of Taiwan. The requisition was for batteries; however, it appears that missile components were 

shipped instead. The Taiwanese submitted an SDR to the ILCO and identified the wrong item 

received and requested credit and disposition instructions. The ILCO in turn entered the SDR 

into WebSDR and forwarded to the DLA ICP (SMS) for action. The response sent by SMS 

provided credit and disposition instructions for local disposal. Ms. Kimberlin said that DLA 

would immediately change the policy for DLA directed shipments to prohibit the disposal of 

wrong item shipments. Further discussion with the Services indicated agreement to standardize 

policy for all. Ms. Hilert indicated she would work with DLA J-3/4 to prepare and staff a 

proposed DLMS change to document the new policy and procedures relative to wrong item 

shipments to FMS customers.